Kathryn Isobel Hay abuse case adjourned to December after heated discussion

Kathryn Isobel Hay, 47, had pleaded not guilty to one charge of emotional abuse or intimidation, and the matter before the Launceston Magistrates Court was previously adjourned to October 17.

This was scheduled as a contest mention, where the magistrate hears further evidence, and can lead to a case dismissal or sentencing indication.

READ MORE: LIVE BLOG: 'I have done the right thing', Premier says

This was adjourned again to December 7 after heated discussions between police prosecutor Garth Stevens and Hay's counsel Marcia Edwards.

Hay appeared by telephone, which Mr Stevens said the prosecution had not agreed to and threatened to request an arrest warrant if it happened again.

Magistrate Marica Duvnjak said the proper paperwork had not been filed and reprimanded the defence.

READ MORE: Postecoglou fronts Australian soccer revival

"There was an obligation for Ms Hay to appear in person," Ms Duvnjak said.

However, Ms Edwards said the prosecution told her the week prior that their intention was to adjourn the matter and was operating under that belief, otherwise she and Hay would have attended.

Ms Edwards said it was a "very confusing prosecution", as Mr Stevens was the third person to represent police in the matter and correspondence had gone unanswered.

READ MORE: Warrant issued for alleged Prospect penguin thief

The defence had also summonsed police prosecutor Lauren Binns, seeking documents from her relating to the case.

This prompted some discussion over the extent of Ms Binns' involvement in the prosecution and whether she or Tasmania Police owned the documents, before Ms Duvnjak told Ms Edwards "let's get back to basics".

Ms Edwards said Ms Binns had acted as defence counsel for Hay in relevant matters as late as 2022, and had not properly declared this to her superiors in an affidavit.

READ MORE: Significant investment to tackle Supreme Court backlog

She said this "tainted" the case.

"This is an extraordinary situation," Ms Edwards said.

"You have a person acting as defence counsel in one particular, and as prosecution in another."

Mr Stevens said the summons amounted to a "fishing expedition" - something disputed by Ms Edwards - and objected, claiming the document had not been properly filed.

Ms Duvnjak upheld the objection, as it was unclear from the summons why the documents were being sought or how Ms Binns could be called as a witness.

The magistrate adjourned the matter to December at the prosecution's request.

PUT AT THE BOTTOM OF EVERY STORY

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: